catmoon wrote:I also found the terminology strongly misleading. The question came to mind, "If there is no self then what eats dinner?"

It really does read like a total denial of the existence of human beings. There is quite a difference between saying the self is empty and saying it does not exist.

"Lack of existence" is better? It's all upaya emptiness, concept-emptiness, not real emptiness.

"Lack of existence" is even worse! It makes the same error, while deceptively camouflaging itself in the from of an emptiness statement.

I would say, "Lack of inherent existence" is the most accurate statement of emptiness. There are various types of existence, and inherent existence is the only one negated by emptiness doctrine as it has been taught to me. It is probably important to note the source of my beliefs here, they are mostly drawn from HHDL's books and therefore are sort of Gelug with a pan-Tibetan seasoning.

Hi, Catmoon! Lack of inherent existence. Regarding this, never solid looking appearances have coming into existence, but they appear in interrelationship.

Astus wrote:I'm not so familiar with HHDL's books but the Gelugpa's Prasangika-Madhyamaka is quite strict to the level of the emptiness of emptiness. Even a relatively real existence of self is denied. There is this concept of self and that's it, nothing beyond that. Just a notion, a false notion. Khedrup Je, the 1st Panchen Lama explains the nature of self in their system,

The fact that if it is searched for in these seven ways (Candrakirti's chariot analysis) no self at all is to be found is what it means for the self to be essenceless. This, however, does not repudiate the fact that, if it is not analyzed, the notion of person is a functional one. It being established by a nominal valid cognition, the person does nominally exist. What is more, when the mind that thinks "I" arises, it does so in dependence on, that is, using as a basis, the five aggregates within one's on continuum [if one is in the form realm or below], and the four, [excluding the form aggregate, if one is a formless being]. Without using [such a basis it would not arise] and that is why it [is said] to be merely labeled in dependence on the aggregates.(Dose of Emptiness, p. 290)

the relative existence of the person (self) is not denied at all. if it were, you couldnt do the 7 step analysis on it. what the 7 step analysis establishes is the absence of the person existing through its own power (from its own side).

another sign is that functionality is not annihilated upon analysis: "the notion of person is a functional one". a dose of emptiness is a bloody hard book...

"Even a relatively real existence of self is denied." - said me. By that I referred to concepts like a pudgala, or that there is actually a self on a relative, but not absolute level, that is understood by beings as a self. Even modern teachers may talk about a "small self" or an "ego" that one has to destroy.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

i see emptiness as the goal and path of mahayana buddhism. for some it involves the blowing out of the personal ego. a tainted flame that brings with it many problems. in the sutta nippata we are told: v. 761 "the holy ones know it as highest bliss, the personality's cessation. repugnant to worldly folk, but not to those who clearly see."

in my opinion, there is no need to extinguish any kind of ego, since the self nature is found to be empty on examination anyway, in just the same way that forms are empty. but should you wish to experience personal ego just ask "who am i?" and answer this question with feelings rather than words. initially it will seem obvious that there is no relative experience of an ego... go on asking and see what you find.

nonetheless, the relative ego is an impermanent entity, and as a relative experience, some buddhist have extinguished their ego altogether.

hope this is helpful.

best wishes, White Lotus.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.